-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Federal agents kill Alex Pretti
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Jul 2, 2003
- 154,205
- 20,345
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
When the one being called a liar is, in fact, a person who tells a great deal of lies, then no, it is not immoral to do so.
By the way, a fine distinction has to be made on this forum. We cannot call a public figure a liar, as that is violating the flaming rule, but we can point out a behavior which is repeated lying.
Upvote
0
That is very similar to the law for the US military.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits military members from using, very specifically in the law, "contemptuous words" with regard to the senior leadership of federal and state Executive Branches. However, troops can point out their behavior.
A solder is prohibited from saying, "The president is a liar."
But a soldier can say, "The president's statement was not true."
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Call Me Al
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,371
- 17,933
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The Biden Administration was not part of the "left wing" (certainly on a "global" scale or an American one).
Upvote
0
o_mlly
“Behold, I make all things new.”
- May 20, 2021
- 3,540
- 616
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
? Do you not see the sophistry in the above sentence? "When the one being called a liar is, in fact, a person who ... lies, then no, it is not immoral to do so."
Same as above. "We cannot call a public figure a liar, as that is violating the flaming rule, but we can point out a behavior which is repeated lying."
While the policy is good, it would be better if not limited to only public figures.
Upvote
0
I think they forgot all about her after rhe Pretti incident. So, I have no idea and neither do you as to what would have occurred had Pretti not interfered.
Maybe they would have just yelled at her some more and told her to get back some more. That is THEIR RIGHT as LE to do. And even IF that was all they did, Pretti was violating the law by getting between them and putting his hand on an agent.
Obstructing does NOT mean you can only obstruct if LE is in the middle of arresting someone. Obstructing is impeding ANY LE action. And the fact there was no arrest AFTER the impedance is irrelevant to whether or not Pretti broke law during the action.
Upvote
0
I dont think you did. You answered ehat you thought, but didn't address what you think I meant. So I ask again, Do you think I believe or implied that I think they should be killed. You said I am making excuses. That is a dodge. Lets follow the conversation. You said this in a response to a post I made.
So let’s kill them all, eh?
I asked you if you thought that should happen. Then you responded with
I don’t think any of them should be killed, but you’re sure making a lot of excuses for why they’re expendable.
And I asked you to clarify your meaning so I can understand. Because you brought up the whole "Let's kill them all eh?" Idea. Not me. But you somehow attached to me by claiming that I make excuses as to why they are expendable.
How exactly does anything I said make any implication of "Let's kill them all" or making excuses why they are "expendable" Tie those two comments ts together and it is clearly an implication now that I believe its okay to "kill them all". Is that what you are saying? If not, then exactly what are you saying?
Upvote
0
Indeed thT IS A LOT of agitating if all of them are doing it. Which I don't think all of them are. It cannot be denied that a LOT of them are.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 154,205
- 20,345
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It isn't just limited to public figures. It applies to members as well.
If you have a problem with me, take it to pm or report me. Do not make the thread about me.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 916
- 393
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
To your last point, if there is no legal conviction how would you know that Pretti broke any law?
Upvote
0
Did you miss the AND MORE issue? You do not sincerely believe that ICE only picks up murderers and pedophile criminals do you? Do you honeatly believe that is also what we think?
If so, seems a bit absurd.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group that uses Freedom of Information Act requests to analyze government data, charts detention data snapshots taken twice a month. The percentage of immigrants with criminal convictions or pending charges during Trump’s first year in office ranged from 41% to 57%.
Do 70% of all the immigrants detained during Trump’s second term have criminal convictions or pending charges?
The best figures suggest it’s in that ballpark. University of California Los Angeles researchers at the Deportation Data Project collect and publish immigration data received via FOIA requests. A PolitiFact analysis of its data from Jan. 20, 2025, to Oct. 15 found 64% of immigrants who have been detained under Trump’s second term had either a criminal conviction or pending criminal charge.
About 66% of immigrants ICE arrested from Jan. 20, 2025, to Oct. 15 had criminal convictions or pending charges.
So the large majority of those arrested are in fact convicted criminals (it doesn't matter for what) or have been arrested for a crime. (Again it doesn't matter for what).
So again its absurd to think its ICE's job only to pick up murders or pedophiles. That most certainly is NOT in the laws they are enforcing.
Upvote
0
Protesting is good and supported by most. Agitating, interfering with, obstructing, harrassing, assaulting, and committing crimes while doing so is NOT.
Upvote
0
No. But carrying that while interfering with, obstructing, and committing crimes is a STUPID thing. Any firearms instructor will tell you NOT to do that.
Upvote
0
I think you need to really think about your question. Think it through thoroughly and I believe you will have an answer. Think broadly before narrowing it just to Pretti. Then re-ask if you wish.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
